FirePro M4170 vs Tesla M2070-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla M2070-Q with FirePro M4170, including specs and performance data.
Tesla M2070-Q outperforms M4170 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 782 | 815 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.05 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Opal |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (14 years ago) | 23 April 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,489 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 448 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 24 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 783 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 150.3 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.11 | 2.84 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 23 April 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Tesla M2070-Q has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
FirePro M4170, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tesla M2070-Q and FirePro M4170.
Be aware that Tesla M2070-Q is a workstation graphics card while FirePro M4170 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
